Here is a message now in Dover, PA (and number of other places) I know some here are going to like. It links to their Schools and Education forum where I answer some of the interesting comments but it is not a cross-forum, just where it had to be published so that the information makes it to the media and educators.

All through time there has been a small portion of the human population who are perpetually driven to gather evidence for their personal scientific theory that somehow helps explain where we came from. It is inherent to their behavior, a born in talent for writing scientific theory that few have. And they always have a very healthy religious side that helped make them the legends they became by giving them the ability to see no limit to what science can discover, even our Creator.

Charles Darwin attended divinity school on a mission to discover the Creator through science. He then found clues pertaining to our origin that were disturbing to his faith but still helpful to science so he none the less wrote about it. Now we honor with monuments this great scientist who actually had no scientific credentials at all, only a divinity degree. But in this case even Atheists can make an exception for him.

Albert Einstein saw himself explaining how God works so he was well in touch with his religious side. Young religious school taught Galileo wanted to be a monk and clergy respected him, then in college his professors gave up on him which helped start an academia feud that reached the pope.

Here below is the author of "Big Bang Theory" the Belgian Roman Catholic priest honorary prelate professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître all dressed up to look good for a science photo for the future to remember him by:

We also have to remember Sir Isaac Newton, who expected the clergy to see his way of interpreting scripture or else he had to loudly protest until they at least pacified him.

In Massachusetts there is the legend Dr. Reverend Edward Hitchcock who did not have a formal college education. But his self-learning very well educated him and he became president of still world-class Amherst College where he described dinosaur footprints and trace fossils like none had ever done in science before. This was way before modern paleontology and finding the deserts full of dinosaur skeletons so this is a large part of how the science of paleontology began in the Americas.

Below you can see the modern museum/shrine Reverend Hitchcock earned to go with his statue (lower-right of center) with major trace-fossil collection in background at the even bigger and better Natural History Museum they built in his honor:

Here we have a "liberal arts college" yet the most revered science legend of them all is a local reverend who had his own church and what he wrote pertaining to science and religion boils down to the search for the Creator in science that I often talk about. What they have of value is not something they believe one way or another, it is something that is discovered that produces scientific information that brings that human search a little further along the path they are traveling that leads to where all people want to go too. Scientists from all over the world come to what is essentially his shrine, to study his collection.

There is no doubt we can keep the faith and still be a science leader. Science more than has a place for those who have a very religious way of seeing things. These are the people who science most admirably remembers and always will. Therefore those with a healthy religious side are not the exception, we still rule!

And more proof of that is the link below to a topic in your schools and education forum where you will find a once thought impossible theory from the religious minded coming of age in science:

Even if one is extremely intelligent does not always mean they cannot be superstitious. In general, of course, the poorer and less-educated a person is or people are, the more likely they are to believe in gods or other imaginary creatures, but the abovementioned famous persons are exception to this general rule - though no doubt their "religious nature" is usually taken completely out of context.

Fortunately as people become more civilized and educated by time these superstitions become more rare and have less impact on the functioning of societies. Luckily, nowadays, vast majority of talented scientists do not have imaginary friends that tell them what they should do and what not.

It was definitely worse a couple of centuries ago and it'll likely be much better in few centuries. Hopefully by 2200 we realise that Odin or Amon Ra are just as likely rulers of the universe as are Jahve or Allah... which means we can regard them as interesting parts of history, but also smile at the naivity of the people who believed in them so mach that they spent fortunes in building monuments and temples for them and killed and murdered and waged war in their name countless of times. A bit pity, though, that we are quite unlikely to live to see that day ourselves.

From what I have found so far I am very certain that it doesn't work that way. As is happening right now anti-religious scientists dwell on what cannot be done, the ultimate science-stoppers. Might make an OK lab technician or are able write papers maybe invent something, but a science changing theory requires going beyond where science leads into territory that at the time is considered "supernatural" or "religion" but is not. As a result, the only ones that dare going that far into the unknown for a theory that makes others obsolete must have a religious mind that sees no point sitting around writing pompous statements proclaiming all that is impossible to discover.

There probably hasn't been any other power in the world that has hindered science as much as religion. Biotechnology, genetics, stem cell research are all constantly being undermined by religious people, scientists among them. Before these fields the unfortunate targets of religious fanatics were areas such as astronomy and evolution, and I'd anticipate that in the future big advancements in AI development may be also held back by the same people.

And how on earth you assume that a scientist has to believe in a god in order to make groundbreaking research, or that anti-religious scientists keep dwelling on what cannot be done? It is easy to see that as a general rule, the more religious a nation is the more backward it is: the Islamistic world and the Catholic lands are not only poorer (save from few oil countries) but also way behind in science when compared to more liberal western countries and Japan, where science does not tie people up.

Below is a quote from one of many studies that indicate that scientists are significantly less religious than people in general. In brief:

"(The authors) concluded that academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are significantly less religious than the general population." (Ecklund, 2007)

and

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God" (Newsweek, 1998)

Almost whichever study you choose to look at, it is clear that in general scientists do not believe in god and elite scientists make no difference. Or should I say that most scientists are agnostics, because there is no way to disprove the existence of a god. Though there is no indication of the existence of any kind of god whatsoever so it's rather irrelevant to try to categorise people as atheists or agnostics anyway...

P.S. Has it ever occured to you that maybe these guys you mentioned in your original post either had to say they believed in god whether they actually did or didn't (maybe just because their mom always said there is a god), or that there would've been other great scientists that didn't belive in god as well, but they were suppressed by the church and their contemporary societies and thus never got their name to the books of history?

Forgot the original link to the article itself, but you'll probably find it by Google. And note, the results concenr elite research scientists, namely those you Gary claimed that must be religious.

"Almost 52 percent of the 1,646 scientists who participated in the study have no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population.

More than 31 percent said they do not believe in God, and another 31 percent said they do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out -- a whopping 62 percent of those surveyed.

More than 56 percent did not attend a religious service during the entire year preceding the survey.

Only 9.7 percent said they have "no doubts about God's existence." "

Also, if we think about biology (which this forum is about), you notice that biologists are probably the most atheist/agnostic group of scientists one can find.

Finally

"Nearly all the scientists who said they believe in God, and have a current affiliation with a church, were raised in a home where religion was considered very important, [Ecklund] said. Thus, they conform to the same pattern seen in the population at large. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. "

Religion is like an infectious disease as can clearly be seen. Unfortunately very difficult to cure as well, but luckily not impossible.

Other than helping to understand science and the scientific issues, I have no affiliation with any church or follow one religion. Yet I am called a religious nutter, Bible-thumper and just about every religious insult that exists. I am now known as a "Creationist" even though my knowledge of the process of evolution is beyond those who gave me that label.

Anyone care to explain why working in the newer "intelligence" fields of science causes that to happen to even university level professors?

Grumpy Posted: Dec 27 2008, 05:31 PM Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.TS is a terrible thing to be, sometimes it is just incurable. Sad.

TheDoc Posted: Dec 20 2008, 05:24 AM Negative -

Physfan Posted: Nov 24 2008, 08:45 PM Negative A fool who doesn't know it (but would a fool recognise their foolishness)? I hope his brand of sky fairy loves him because no one else does.

TheDoc Posted: May 27 2008, 02:43 AM Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.

photojack Posted: May 14 2008, 07:00 AM Negative This seems to be the level of intellect from Gary! "I smell cheese. Or was that someone passing gas? Har!" Seriously delusional and needs to learn about the scientific peer-review process before he puts his foot in his mouth again! (()) Only a few more days until uaafanblog's next negative!

uaafanblog Posted: May 10 2008, 02:53 AM Negative This is simply another in a long future list of making up for my mistaken pos rep. As long as you are here you'll see this weekly from me. Your hypocrisy and ignorance deserve nothing less.

TheDoc Posted: May 9 2008, 03:34 AM Negative -25

<Max> Posted: May 5 2008, 09:05 PM Negative -24 you freaking retard

BigDumbWeirdo Posted: May 5 2008, 02:51 PM Negative completely ignorant of science, the scientific method, and even the particulars of his own belief system.

Grumpy Posted: Apr 29 2008, 12:03 PM Negative What a Freaking Fool!!!

uaafanblog Posted: Apr 28 2008, 11:38 AM Negative I'm still bummed that I hit the pos button mistakenly last week. It will take a long time for me to undo that error statistically but I'm determined to make it happen.

<Max> Posted: Apr 28 2008, 07:58 AM Negative -20

uaafanblog Posted: Apr 18 2008, 11:20 PM Positive OK ... so I'm jumping the gun here. It's obvious to me that "the rapture" isn't happening today as you promised. This is really the only method I have for expressing my disappointment. Expect regular weekly negs from now until the rapture actually does happen at which time I'll give you a pos since I'll still be here.

<Max> Posted: Apr 17 2008, 11:12 AM Negative -20

TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 05:41 AM Negative -19

Grumpy Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:24 PM Negative ID'ers will certainly know I'm one of them now! I wondered how you Idiotic Deniers recognized each other in order to mate.

uaafanblog Posted: Apr 4 2008, 03:26 PM Positive I'm giving you a pos not because you have earned it. But instead because I'm happy to know that Yahweh is FINALLY gonna make all you idiots disappear. Man oh man ... I sure hope you aren't wrong. If you are wrong then I'm neg repping you on April 19th.

photojack Posted: Jan 23 2008, 04:56 PM Negative For consistent MISREPRESENTATION of legitimate science as supporting ID. Needs to learn about the peer-review process and how it weeds out hogwash like cell "intelligence" as he interprets it! And for thinking creationresearch.org has valid science on its site. My rebuttal to their lichen article proved their bogusness! (())

It's a real shame that professionals who are supposed to be "unbiased" clearly have a bias against those who choose to believe in God or creationism. Scientists who believe in God are no less professional than those who don't. Insulting them for their beliefs is akin to racism. There's no reason that belief in God and the study of science cannot coexist. You don't have to believe in God, but leave the people who do alone. Keep your ego to yourself.

There's something to be said about someone who's entire profession is based on collecting evidence and then basing conclusion on that evidence and that alone, but will then go home and believe something that doesn't have one shroud (pun intended) of evidence whatsoever. This statement applies to every religion, eastern and western.

If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.

In a professional setting I would say it is entirely inappropriate; if it compromises someone's ability to succeed or advance in their job I would consider it discrimination. If it happens outside of work and doesn't advance to anything serious I would say that it is a matter of free speech.

I won't say an "eye for an eye" necessarily, but religious people don't necessarily tend to speak so kindly of science, particularly things that tend to disagree with their religious teachings. If you're trying to speak or act in any scientific field, leave the religion out of it.

Additionally, Einstein did not define his god by the traditional Judeo-Christian sense. His god was "nature" and its happenings.. not a personal god who dealt with sins and punishment.

Galileo was not religious as far as we can actually tell. He was religious because you HAD to be in his day and age where he lived... if you wanted to stay alive. Try publishing something in the 15- and 1600s without being a devout Catholic. Not a chance.

To say that you can only advance science by full-on believing something that is, for lack of evidence, false is a totally speculation that can only come from somebody with a religious background in the first place. It is clear that you don't have an understanding about how scientific research and the scientific community in general works.